Punctuation doubts in CSE citing style Thread poster: Magdalena Ponce
|
|---|
Hi everyone!
I'm writing because I've come across a doubt that is proving difficult to dispel... I'm proofreading a scientific paper, specifically on sedimentology, which will be sent to a journal that uses what seems to be a CSE-derived citing style. Here's the 'Instructions to authors' webpage of the journal:
http://www.scielo.cl/revistas/andgeol/iinstruc.htm
... See more Hi everyone!
I'm writing because I've come across a doubt that is proving difficult to dispel... I'm proofreading a scientific paper, specifically on sedimentology, which will be sent to a journal that uses what seems to be a CSE-derived citing style. Here's the 'Instructions to authors' webpage of the journal:
http://www.scielo.cl/revistas/andgeol/iinstruc.htm
Well, the author sometimes refers within the text to his own figures and sometimes to figures that appear in other papers.
Sometimes he mentions figures in other articles right after a citation, for instance:
'XXX and XXX (2005; Fig. 14C) show thrusts during the deposition of the upper XXX Formation...'
(he is clearly NOT referring to his own figures because there are fewer than 14 figures in his paper...)
And at other times, he wants readers to refer to his own figures, right after mentioning the citation, for example:
'This formation was deposited during the early Upper Cretaceous, extending from the Cenomanian to the Santonian (Poiré et al., 2007; Varela and Poiré 2008; Varela, 2009; Fig. 4).'
(he is clearly referring to his own figure, otherwise he'd be referring to a single figure in several sources!)
What I'd like to know is how I can make it clear that in some cases he is referring to a figure in his own paper and sometimes to figures in other papers!
Hope you can share your expertise and help me out! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Graeme Walle (X) 
Finland
Local time: 11:32
Finnish to English
+ ...
| Fig. and fig. etc. | Jan 17, 2011 |
When I was a geological research student in the 80's, the convention was Fig. or Table (first letter capitalised) when referring to items in one's own paper and fig. or table (lower case first letter) when citing such in another paper. However you should try to check the actual journal's usage (http://www.andeangeology.equipu.cl/index.php/revista1/search/titles) becau... See more When I was a geological research student in the 80's, the convention was Fig. or Table (first letter capitalised) when referring to items in one's own paper and fig. or table (lower case first letter) when citing such in another paper. However you should try to check the actual journal's usage (http://www.andeangeology.equipu.cl/index.php/revista1/search/titles) because different journals have different rules/conventions. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Graeme Walle (X)
Finland
Local time: 11:32
Finnish to English
+ ...
PS. That should be Tab. or tab. .
| | | | | comma vs. semi-colon | Jan 17, 2011 |
Hello,
I'm not familiar with CSE-style (I work in the humanities), but shouldn't the year and figure number in your first example be separated by a comma?
(Author X, Year X, p./fig X; Author Y, Year Y, p./fig. Y; Author Z, Year Z, p./fig. Z)
Any of these elements may be left out according to what is mentioned in the running text, but even in the case of "Year X, fig. X; Author Y, Year Y, fig. Y" the meaning would remain clear to a careful reader.
The ... See more Hello,
I'm not familiar with CSE-style (I work in the humanities), but shouldn't the year and figure number in your first example be separated by a comma?
(Author X, Year X, p./fig X; Author Y, Year Y, p./fig. Y; Author Z, Year Z, p./fig. Z)
Any of these elements may be left out according to what is mentioned in the running text, but even in the case of "Year X, fig. X; Author Y, Year Y, fig. Y" the meaning would remain clear to a careful reader.
The fact that sometimes there is simply a figure (Author X, Year X, fig. X; Fig. Y [= in present article]) again requires the reader to pay attention, but the system remains consistent and more or less intutitive.
Sorry if this answer was a waste of your time, but I would suspect that this is also the CSE guide's answer.
Sincerely,
Michael ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| Possible solutions | Jan 17, 2011 |
Suggestions:
.... Fig. 14C in XXX and XXX (2005) shows thrusts during the deposition ....
...This formation (see Fig. 4) was deposited during the early Upper Cretaceous, extending from the Cenomanian to the Santonian (Poiré et al., 2007; Varela and Poiré 2008; Varela, 2009)....
| | | | | Thanks guys! | Jan 18, 2011 |
I think that all of your answers are great for one reason or other. Until I meet the researcher to review the translation together, I'll do some reading of Andean Geology articles in the hope that I'll see the light at the end of the tunnel. I had done some reading before asking the oracle (this forum!) but it's different when you've got a definite idea in mind. If I find anything of interest, I'll let you know...
Thanks once again!
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Punctuation doubts in CSE citing style | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
